Regarding populations there is much propoganda aimed at this thing of overpopulation by my take directly in focus of those eternalists amongst us who thing god is running things and more people is always a good thing as that is what god intends.

The truth of the matter is something like this quote (near as I can tell)...

"Exponential growth also applies to the the human population. It begins growing very slowly, but over generations the growth rate increases more and more rapidly, similar to a snowball affect. It took the human population thousands of years to reach 1 billion in 1804. However, it took only 123 years for us to double to 2 billion by 1927. The population hit 4 billion in 1974 (only 47 years), and if we continue at our current rate, the human population will reach 8 billion in 2028. Doubling from our present count of 6.8 billion to 13.6 billion will have a much greater impact than our last couple doublings combined."

Population is increasing exponentially, not line wise.WE are in that regard finished...mass deaths of the premature kind are now inevitable just due to the large scales we are dealing with.Shippments stopping in 08 due to the credit crisis in response to no letters of credit allowing shipping(not a thing to do with petroleum or any other finate issues at all)..I'd say easily in a week a multiple million die. We are that vulnerable. It in that event being not the actual starving but the panic/hording/killing that would ensue. Everything moves on the basis of credit, trucks ships whatever..people don't realize that.Virtually all payroll runs on credit revolving. Many on a weekly basis.Peoples do not realize how fragile people wise this whole thing is., Imagine your city Omaha nebraska or any other place... NYC..has no food coming into it for a week..what are the consequences of that.Think your supermarket has food on hand to last a week, look at supermarkets in areas prone to hurricanes just before a hurricane is predicted to hit....stripped bare they are like as not. Such would be the entire US and europe...stripped bare in a day or two..and then?

Then government steps in but due to scale and scope how long before things return to normalacy.....months. How many die as consequence.....geeze louise outstanding and that is just by retraction of credit. Imagine a real crisis like the greenland ice sheet slippage which we know not really how soon or quickly that thing could transpire, as result all sea areas of human habitation under water...and 90% of us live in these areas...geeze louise.

Peak oil may be in these contexts a afterthought.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

ronnewmexico wrote:"Exponential growth also applies to the the human population. It begins growing very slowly, but over generations the growth rate increases more and more rapidly, similar to a snowball affect. It took the human population thousands of years to reach 1 billion in 1804. However, it took only 123 years for us to double to 2 billion by 1927. The population hit 4 billion in 1974 (only 47 years), and if we continue at our current rate, the human population will reach 8 billion in 2028. Doubling from our present count of 6.8 billion to 13.6 billion will have a much greater impact than our last couple doublings combined."

Population is increasing exponentially, not line wise.

The population is not actually increasing exponentially but seems to follow a logistic curve. The most explosive part of that curve is exponential but it then levels out. But the bad news is that the leveling out will be between 9-12+ billion, more likely around 10 billion people. This is not happy news.

The reason that the population will level off is that all the industrialized nations and all major urban regions everywhere have population growth dropping to replacement levels or below (even in India and China and Sub-Saharan Africa and South America). Population growth is driven now by rural population growth and in most places it has been dropping for 30 years, just not dropping fast enough. The other problem is that the birth rate follows the death rate historically - after a war or a famine anywhere in the world population increases and tends to overshoot the previous population level (amazingly the Swedes and the Japanese in particular have records demonstrating this phenomena going back hundreds of years - practically the only people's to have made these long-term records). That phenomena is bad news because of conflict in Africa.

kirtu wrote:The population is not actually increasing exponentially but seems to follow a logistic curve. The most explosive part of that curve is exponential but it then levels out. But the bad news is that the leveling out will be between 9-12+ billion, more likely around 10 billion people. This is not happy news.

There are various estimates concerning the global population. See this tidy graph:

A population of 14 billion, where many would demand a standard of living comparable to the wealthy urban dwellers of their respective countries, is unthinkable. There is technically space for all those human beings, but not enough resources to go around, especially when we consider how people want progressively better lifestyles for themselves and children. Resource consumption is rapidly rising in China and India. One prime example of this is the development of domestic air carriers, and their rapid expansion. They want to open routes everywhere and don't even have the planes yet.

kirtu wrote:The population is not actually increasing exponentially but seems to follow a logistic curve. The most explosive part of that curve is exponential but it then levels out. But the bad news is that the leveling out will be between 9-12+ billion, more likely around 10 billion people. This is not happy news.

There are various estimates concerning the global population. See this tidy graph:

Yeah, I am very familiar with these studies having done a population study informally in the late 80's - early 90's that was posted on Usenet way back when (actually it may have been on FidoNet) after having asserted exponential population growth. The study I did was later reflected in at least two UN projections as the middle projection.

At first I was surprised to find that population growth wasn't exponential but this has been well-known in animal populations for quite a while. But the middle projection is also a disaster and can still lead to chaotic behaviour (really chaotic behaviour reflected in war and human made disasters).

Might as well prepare for the worst then. There will be no ordinary life to lead in coming decades. Best to give up all worldly aims as the world ain't gonna put out.

The thing is that for many nations population increase isn't so bad and China and the US (the 1st and 3rd most populous nations) are well below rapid growth rates (both nations would take about 140 years to double their population and the trend is actually tending toward hitting or going below replacement rates). However some nations will definitely exceed their capacity to support their populations. And this is the problem. What will happen is a spread of conflict and unrest but it will still be sporadic across the planet like it is now. So many places will be okay and even a practical utopia.

We can actually transform the whole planet and set it on a sustainable course even now.

I think silver below 50$/oz is a bargain. If I had cash, that's what I'd buy. Stocking up food like lentils and rice is a good idea also. Inflation is going to get nasty.

More QE (=money printing) will be announced today. They can't stop the currency devaluation spiral without causing the global economy grinding to a halt immediately. That's why they will print money until the bitter end.

Finally, there has been a big change in the way that the spoils of economic success have been divvied up. Back when Nixon was berating the speculators attacking the dollar peg, there was an implicit social contract under which the individual was guaranteed a job and a decent wage that rose as the economy grew. The fruits of growth were shared with employers, and taxes were recycled into schools, health care and pensions. In return, individuals obeyed the law and encouraged their children to do the same. The assumption was that each generation would have a better life than the last.

I sense that a lot of baby boomers fail to realize this when discussing finances with young adults who might still be living at home or who seem to be financially inept. There is no more guarantee of getting a job at a decent salary, even if you're well educated, with the expectation that you will receive increments in salary as time goes on, thus facilitating reasonable assurances that paying off a loan for a home is possible. The reality for 20 something year olds now is entirely different.

Huseng wrote:I sense that a lot of baby boomers fail to realize this when discussing finances with young adults who might still be living at home or who seem to be financially inept. There is no more guarantee of getting a job at a decent salary, even if you're well educated, with the expectation that you will receive increments in salary as time goes on, thus facilitating reasonable assurances that paying off a loan for a home is possible. The reality for 20 something year olds now is entirely different.

Huseng - you seem to make a lot of these demographic arguments. Perhaps you are channelling Courtney Love circa the late 90's?

assuming your demographic concepts (which I don't actually accept BTW) -where are these boomers hunting down poor defenseless 20 yr olds? Is there some Dangerous Game-like island or city that I haven't heard about? Then why are you investing boomers with this kind of gravitas? Who cares what boomers think? Then - where are you finding these boomer - 20-something financial discussions? Are boomers lying in wait and ambushing them at the 7-11 or something? I never discuss finances with my 19-22 something cousins (for one thing they can just say : you earned over $1M - and how much of it did you save?) - and I'm surely not going to demand that some 20-something slacker - errr - Millennial or something get or create a real job and move out of Mom and Dad's place in the middle (yes the middle) of the Second Great Depression.

Are people picking on your slacker friends or what? BTW - slacker goes back pretty far and at least three sub-generational cohorts have adopted the term to refer to their fellow cohort members ....

Kirt

Last edited by kirtu on Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

kirtu wrote:Are people picking on your slacker friends or what? BTW - slacker goes back pretty far and at least three sub-generational cohorts have adopted the term to refer to their fellow cohort members ....

Kirt

This is just my general experience and what my friends have lamented. My friends are a diverse bunch, too. Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Africans, Asians... but in this case I'm referring primarily to my friends from western countries, particularly the USA, Canada and western European nations. Judging from their experiences, too, the lot of them continue to live at home (at least not when studying abroad, in which case they're living in cheap dorms). Securing decent employment for a lot of university grads is becoming a big problem. For Canadians and American youth with massive student loans it means a lifetime of debt or just defaulting. The whole promise before was get educated and get a good job, but it doesn't work like that anymore.

Huseng wrote:he whole promise before was get educated and get a good job, but it doesn't work like that anymore.

This is because conservatives do not seem to understand that higher wages result in broader prosperity for all, not more investment.

I like Robert Reich's idea of a negative income tax.

N

It would be nice if the wealth of a nation actually belonged to its citizens.

Meaning that a portion of the money gained from extracting natural resources would be given to the citizens directly as cash. Some might argue that people would just go waste it on foolishness, but I think most adults would use it responsibility (pay off their debts, fund an education, etc...).

Unfortunately the wealth of most nations is not owned by the people either in name or in practice.